There are a number of different questions one can mean when one asks which political ideology you subscribe to. One question might be: "What is the ideal form of social organization that we should aspire to?" Another might be: "What should we make happen right now (in order to eventually reach the ideal)?" Or, a third might be: "Of the real possibilities available to us right now, which is the most agreeable?"
It's easy to conceive of situations in which these three questions have very different answers, that is, when achieving the ideal is only possible through a series of less than ideal situations - perhaps even some situations which are worse at that moment than some other available situations. If a person says their goal is to have bread, we don't criticize them as being inconsistent when, in the absence of bread, they eat potatoes or make dough. In such a situation, it's clear to us that the reason the person isn't eating bread is because bread isn't available, and that making dough doesn't mean the person isn't, in the long run, actually making bread. An "anarchist", in the sense of "a person who views the ideal social organization to be state-free (or, better, coercion-free)", isn't inconsistent for supporting, say, environmental protection laws - which can only exist in the context of the state. Perhaps the anarchist in question sees the progression of society towards a stable anarchism as involving a first step of having environmental protection laws. Or perhaps the anarchist in question thinks that anarchy is an ideal that society isn't presently capable of, and that, in the interim, it would be best to protect the environment. None of these positions make that person less of an anarchist in the sense of believing anarchy to be the ideal state of affairs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Something is wrong with the world. Let's fix it. Archives
December 2020
Categories |